Professor Erickson's book is a diptych, displaying both a synopsis of Ephraim Radner's extensive body of work and a constructive engagement with his ecclesiology. The form signals its origin as a doctoral thesis, but it also serves an essential purpose. The diptych's first panel is necessitated by ‘a barrier to Radner's reception into mainstream academic discourse’ (p. 4) that has led to the ‘odd neglect’ (p. 5) of Radner's numerous books and essays. Before engaging in a dialogue with Radner, Erickson deals with the ‘vexing perplexity’ (p. 3) of his writing by limning central features of his ongoing project. Only then can she proceed with her own work in relation to Radner's.

The barrier to Radner's reception in academic discourse (and, unfortunately, in ecclesial discourse) is erected by the ‘intimidatingly impenetrable’ (p. 5) character of his writing. Erickson sets out to penetrate the obstacle by providing abstracts of two key elements in Radner's imposing corpus: figural reading of scripture and the reworking of ecclesiological trajectories. While Erickson's summaries provide a measure of clarity, they conceal much of Radner's theological and rhetorical intent. His ‘often frustrating literary style’ (p. 5) is not a simple case of bad writing. In Radner's own words, quoted by Erickson, ‘I want to circle around things, go after this or that thread from a recondite source or buried article, find a theory that has only bounced around the edges of the field. It is, I think, useful to linger on elements that we tend to erase in the pursuit of logics whose purposes are often hidden’ (p. 6). Following Radner on his circling, finding and lingering can be distracting, but accompanying him frequently leads to insight that eludes more prosaic discourse.

Radner's writing is at once puzzling and enriching, diverting and suggestive, elusive and incisive. In Erickson's view this complexity is a key to understanding Radner's project and a rationale for her own approach. Erickson contends that Radner's ‘perplexing writing bears a remarkable resemblance to, and has the theological significance of, the prophetic voice of Hosea’ (p. 6). Thus, the second panel of the diptych begins with a lengthy figural reading of Hosea's ‘obtuse language’, setting the stage for an ‘appreciative conversation’ (p. 173) with Radner's understanding of the church's current dilemma.

In line with Radner's apprehension of scriptural figuration, Erickson's intriguing reading of Hosea proceeds from the conviction that ‘the truth of the text is ultimately not sought in an original textual form, authorial intent, historical prophet, or account of “what really happened”. Instead, the truth of the text is authorised by its relation to the body of Jesus Christ’ (p. 110). Erickson's Hosea is no longer confined to long ago and far away but is ‘conjoined and contemporaneous’ (p. 41) with the people of God throughout time and space, thus opening its witness to the church in the post-Christendom West.

Erickson's reading of Hosea is complex and subtle, consuming nearly one-third of her book. While her moves are sometimes strained, readers will appreciate the strength of interpretation that is not bound by the strictures of textual archaeology or the weaknesses of typology and application. Erickson's figural reading opens the possibility of scriptural reception by the church in the post-Christendom West.

Several features of Erickson's reception of Hosea and its juxtaposition to Radner are worth noting. Both address a divided people, both employ marriage as a primary metaphor for the relationship of God and his people, both address God's people at a time of deteriorated cultic and organisational forms, and both reflect on the significance of waiting. Underlying all of this is the unsettling ‘tortured’ character of Hosea's prose and Radner's writing, both of which signal the collapse of meaning that accompanies the degradation of traditional forms.

This clears the ground for Erickson's Hosea-informed conversation with Radner, one that ‘might revise Radner's account of the church’ (p. 173). The exchange is too brief, however, providing assertions rather than the fuller engagement they deserve. Erickson takes issue with Radner's diagnosis of the church's divisions and inability to repent, his ‘remaining’ in a church deprived of pneumatic presence, his ‘fatalism’ and deficient eschatology, and more. She lauds his engagement with physicality and everydayness, natural theology, the reality of death, poesis, and other features of Radner's work. These are all reasonable points of engagement with Ephraim Radner's sustained ecclesiological analysis and his unrelenting indictment of the church's current state. Yet Erickson only gestures towards matters that warrant fuller explication. Even wilderness as a crucial scriptural figure – highlighted by the book's title – calls for fuller treatment if it is to provide a compelling alternative to Radner, opening the church to a different sense of its condition and future.

The book's originating form may account for its incompleteness. One hopes that Erickson's ‘appreciative conversation’ with Ephraim Radner's profound and challenging corpus will continue. In the Introduction to her book, Erickson says, ‘If I have simply nudged a worthy if perplexing theologian closer to the mainstream of today's theological discourse, I will have fulfilled my task’ (p. 6). Perhaps her continuing engagement with a most interesting and provocative contemporary theologian will nudge academic (and ecclesial) discourse toward even more thorough reception.